Before I post this information I just thought I would share some personal information. Up until recently, Australia was seen has a good place for Saffies (South Africans) to work for a year or two... or for some families to migrate to.

This is starting to change for the youth of our nation. Australia seems to be becoming a intellectually hostile place to go. With their censoring of the internet ... and now this:

A court in Australia has convicted a man for child pornography offences involving pictures of the children from The Simpsons cartoon series having sex

CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person'
included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said.

"... The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

While the psychology of paedophilia is rather abstract, this ruling is even more so.

I guess the crux for me is that nobody was harmed, coerced or abused in the production of the cartoon, and therefore there is no crime.

I don't see how this could be a crime, it's clearly a parody, and not meant to be arousing, surely? Even so, I'm sure there are far more edgy publications, such as Manga cartoons, which I would think needed more defense than a parody of the Simpsons.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

strange, but then NSW laws are stange anyway. Look at the stupid "annoyance laws" which were struck down by the full bench of the federal court.

That being said i think this could go to the high court if the guy chose to apeal, i have no idea wether he would win or not though because it depends where the definition of "person" is written and HOW its written

Hentai is the japanese word you are thinking of? Manga as I know it are print cartoons (even if they are in electronic format). Hentai is japanese erotic cartoons. They out of this world weird.

Click to expand...

Manga and Anime both have some edgy content, which is referred to as 'hentai', yeah. Too many school girl types in sailor outfits, and too many demons with reaching tentacles.

If this Simpsons thing steps over the line, Hentai sure as hell does, unless it carries disclaimers that the characters portrayed are of a certain age, but the whole thing sounds like bullshit to me. If no-one was harmed, coerced or abused, it's weird, and certainly tasteless, but should it be illegal? I'd say no.

What's wrong with cartoons? I don't get it. I thought the point of cracking down on people who view child pornography was to keep children from being abused and/or exploited by people taking pictures of them or forcing/coercing them into sexual situations. But a cartoon does none of these things. There are absolutely no children harmed in the process of drawing a cartoon character. Personally I would prefer a pedophile to look at drawings of children engaged in sexual activities than look at porn with actual children or actually having sex with actual children. Who is harmed in cartoon child pornography? Shouldn't this law include books as well, that mention underage sex?

This kinda ruling I would only expect from America and their law system, but it appears Australian Judges need a wake up call as well.

Do you think this kind of ruling is reasonable or rational?

Click to expand...

This ruling is absurd. The reason child porn is illegal is becaus children must be abused to produce it. With cartoons, that's not the case. Hell, I've seen pop ups for sites featuring cartoon characters having sex. I even went to the site, because I thought it would be funny to see Marge Simpson having sex with Flanders (I don't remember anything about child characters being involved). Sadly, it was a pay site and I never pay for internet content so I didn't see any of the movies. (and they didn't offer any previews).

Thank God I don't live in Australia!

I am unaware of any such conviction in the US, by the way. It is absurd, especially for characters such as the Simpsons. If the cartoon characters were ultra-realistic, perhaps you might say it could encourage child molesters, but I really don't think that's the case with the Simpsons.

"seeing it on the internet encourages doing it in real life"? i thought jack thompson was disbarred already.

just as video games are an outlet for violence, porn is an outlet for sexual energy. what are they going to ban next? any porn that doesnt involve two people clearly portrayed as married doing it missionary?

Things are getting weirder here. First our delay on investing in the solar energy, our attempt to censor the internet, and now this. I agree with phlogistician, that no one was abused or harmed in the making of this porn, therefore he shouldn't be charged.